|
|
|
putting their hands on the Bible had sworn to support the
constitution of the United States, which says that no
man's property shall be taken without compensation, and
then at one blow had wiped out sixty millions of property
belonging to the people of Maryland. It was a gross
outrage upon those people, and if it were possible he
would say pay them, but under the circumstances his
mouth was closed. Could this Convention help them?
He thought not. They were sent here by the people with
the understanding that a prohibition against State com-
pensation was to be inserted in the constitution. He
could not disobey this injunction, and go home to Alle-
gany. Besides other people had lost their property dur-
ing the war; how were they to be compensated. His
stables had been burned, his house mobbed and his life
endangered, and along the border similar cases had oc-
curred. He had nothing to do but to submit, as it was
the result of war.
Mr. Stoddert said this was right of justice; and the
Legislature, by its prohibition, had committed a greater
outrage upon them than the radicals of 1864. He would
say perish a thousand constitutions sooner than sacrifice
the eternal principles of right and justice. He cared for
no constitution which did not secure to him the privileges
of a freeman, and if this section was left in as reported
he should advise his people to vote against it. He did not
come here to make a constitution to keep his party in
power, but to obtain his rights, of which he had been
deprived.
Mr. Carmichael (Mr. Dent in the chair) asked permis-
sion to assign the reasons why he should vote against the
amendment, and in doing this he might say why this
feature in the bill calling the Convention was placed there.
The subject was fully discussed at the time, and no reason
had been adduced why it should not be placed there, and
no reason had since been adduced why it should not be
there. The gentleman on his left and the gentleman from
Charles, (Mr. Stoddert, ) had rambled off into attacks on
this feature, and threatened the constitution with defeat
if it is inserted. But they have not brought forward one
single reason why the State should compensate them for
the loss of their property. Was their section the only
276
|
|
|
|
 |
